See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/238664460

Scour Protection around Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations, Full-Scale

Measurements

Article · January 2007

CITATIONS READS

15 3,586

4 authors, including:

Erik Asp Hansen Anders Wedel Nielsen

Det Norske Veritas Independent Researcher
20 PUBLICATIONS   241 CITATIONS    17 PUBLICATIONS   359 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Management of seabed and wind farm ineteraction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anders Wedel Nielsen on 16 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Scour Protection around Offshore Wind Turbine Foundations,
Full-Scale Measurements
Erik Asp Hansen
DHI Water • Environment • Health
eah@dhigroup.com
Anders Wedel Nielsen
DHI Water • Environment • Health
awn@dhigroup.com
Michael Høgedal
Vestas Wind Systems
mhl@vestas.com
Abstract:
The major challenge of ensuring the stability of the
seabed around offshore wind turbine foundations is
addressed in the present paper.
Full-scale, high-resolution measurements of the
seabed and the scour protection around the monopile
foundations in Horns Rev offshore wind farm are
analysed and presented. The measured developments
in the scour protection are related to wave and current
conditions.
The wind turbines at Horns Rev wind farm are
each placed on circular monopiles at water depths
ranging from 6-13 m at MSL. The seabed consists of
fine to coarse sand (D50 = 0.15-1 mm). The wave
conditions are severe – the largest waves are in the
order of 8 m high. The max current in the wind farm
area is approximately 0.88 m/s (50 year return period).
The stability of the seabed around the wind turbine
foundations is one of the major challenges in offshore
wind farm design. Each foundation at Horns Rev is
protected by a 50 cm thick filter layer (D50 = 10 cm)
and a 1 m thick armour layer (D50 = 40 cm) placed
within a radius of 9.5 m from the centre of the
monopole.
5 high-resolution surveys of the scour protection
around all the wind turbine units have been carried out
before and after installation of the turbine foundations.
The paper presents the development of the
surrounding seabed and the scour protection
themselves.
The surveys around all 80 wind turbines
consistently show a lowering of the scour protection
and a net transport away from the scour protection
area. The measurements also show that up to 1.5 m
local lowering of the armour layer have taken place
Hans Jacob Simonsen
DHI Water • Environment • Health
hjs@dhigroup.com
Jan Pedersen
DONG Energy
janpe@DongEnergy.dk
during the time period from 2002 to 2005. The largest
lowerings have occurred close to the wind turbines.
The history of the wave current climate in the wind
farm area has been established from a combination of
numerical simulations and measurements. From the
wave current climate the movement of the underlying
sand bed has been assessed.
Simple flow analysis and the surveys indicate that
the sand has been transported upwards through the
filter and armour layers at most of the wind turbine
locations. This has resulted in subsidence of the filter
and armour layers into the sand bed. The top level of
the scour protection layer is, however, still above the
surrounding seabed level, which the wind turbines
have been designed for. It is further concluded that
some erosion up to 0.5 m (0.1 tower diameter) deep
has occurred outside the scour protection in the
distance 15 m away from centre of the wind turbines
on the east side of the turbines (opposite the main
wave direction (coming from)).
Keywords: Full-scale measurements, scour, scour
protection, wind turbine foundations.
1 Introduction
All today’s offshore wind farms producing energy
(start 2007) are located in shallow waters; they are
either foundated on monopiles or on gravity based
caissons. The design of the offshore turbines has to
include an assessment of the possible long-term
morphological development occurring during the
design period, and an assessment of the local erosion
caused by the presence of the piles themselves. For
unprotected monopiles placed on erodible sand scour
depths deeper than 2.0 times the pile diameter have
been observed in experiments, see [1]. For a typical
pile this means that the piles have to be designed for
extra 8-10 m tower length. It shall be noted that the
largest local scour depths generally occur in a current
dominating environment, in wave dominating
environment the scour depth typically becomes much
smaller.
In order to avoid the extra costs, which are
associated to having a longer tower, and required to
dredge or protect the power cables from turbines, the
seabed around many energy producing offshore wind
turbines is today protected by stones and gravel. Two
approaches have been used, the so-called static design,
where the seabed is protected before or immediately
after the pile is installed (see [2]) or dynamic design,
where a scour is allowed to be developed before the
scour potection is installed.
The Horns Rev offshore wind farm is located 15
km offshore in a harsh environment of the North Sea.
To protect the foundation from scouring and thus
ensuring the stability of the pile, each foundation has
been protected by a rock berm consisting of 50 cm
single filter layer (D = 10 cm) and an approximately
1 m thick armour layer (D = 40 cm). The armour layer
was designed in a desk study, and stability was
verified in completed experiments in scale 1:25 in co-
directional waves and current for the design wave-
current seastate. The filter layer was designed to
withstand a summer seastate, and was also tested in
co-directional waves and current.
Almost all of today’s knowledge about scour
development and the stability of scour protection is
based on physical experiments carried out in flumes in
co-directional waves and current, with two-
dimensional waves, see for example [3]. Each test
typically has a limited duration, focussing on the
extreme events. The transformation of these physical
experimental results into full-scale conditions is based
on the assumption that the Froude scaling law is valid.
This means that all Reynolds number effects are
considered to be negligible. In most cases, it has not
been possible to scale the seabed material according to
Froude law because the grain sizes, in model scale,
would have become so small that they no longer would
have acted as sand (cohesionless material). For
example at Horns Rev the seabed grain size is
typically between 0.1 mm and 1.0 mm. Making
physical experiments in scale 1:25, the grain size gives
grains between 0.004 and 0.04 mm. Such fine material
does not act as sand. Instead, physical experiments are
carried out using as fine sand as possible, app. 0.1
mm.
Some full-scale measurements/observations have
been reported. It is costly and difficult to collect all
information required to determine the environmental
conditions that the seabed/scour protection has
experienced after being installed. Full-scale
measurements have therefore only been used to a
limited degree for the design of scour and scour
protection for the offshore wind turbines installed
during the last years. In the future it is expected that
more and more elements of the design of scour
protection will be based on numerical modelling.
The present study was initiated with the purpose of
analysing and using the full-scale data collected during
3 surveys prior to installation of the piles and 6
surveys completed after installation of the piles at
Horns Rev wind farm. And finally compare the results
by the existing theories, and with the model test results
carried out during the design phase. The surveys
indicate that the armour layers have been stable,
however, they have moved downwards due to
movement of the underlying filter layer and seabed
away from the piles. So the purpose of the study was
directed towards a study of the stability of the filter
layer and the seabed. A simple model for the
movement of the filter layer and seabed has been set
up in order to explain the lowering of the armour
stones.
2 Survey
The location of the wind turbines is shown in
Figure 1. The water depth in the farm is between 6.5 m
and 13 m. The survey was conducted by divers or as
multibeam survey from a vessel (2005). The accuracy
of the measurements is in the order of 0.2 m.
Turbine number 07 is selected as an example and
the results are presented and interpreted in the
following. The survey of 2002 and the first time
evolution surveys of 2005 (2005 survey) are
compared. The location of turbine number 07 is shown
in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the difference between the
2002 survey (after installation of armour layer) and the
2005 survey. The blue colour indicates an increase in
depth, e.g. a scour hole, whereas the red colour
indicates a decrease in depth, e.g. deposition of sand.
As seen on the figure there are numerous red and blue
spots with an approximate diameter in the order of
0.2 m. This indicates a relocation of stones.
Close to the pile on the south western side, a scour
hole has apparently been developed. However, this
scour hole might be caused by uncertainties in the
measurements and/or in the conversion of the survey
of 2002.
Figure 1: Overview of Horns Rev wind farm. Turbine number 07 is marked with distinct colours. The depth contours
are based on the survey carried out in 2001.

N-S cross
section
West cross

East cross
section

section

E-W cross
section

Figure 2: Difference between 2005 survey and cover 2002 survey. (’05 minus ’02). The blue colour indicates
erosion, whereas the red colour indicates deposition. Cross-section lines are indicated with black dashed lines.
Figure 3: Cross-section going N-S approximately 25 m east (upper figure) and cross-section going E-W
approximately 25 m west (lower figure) of turbine 07, see Figure 2. Black is the cover 2002 survey and
cyan is the 2005 survey.
 From Figure 3 it is seen how the sand bed east of
turbine number 07 is approximately 0.3 m eroded,
whereas backfilling in the order of 0.2 m has occurred
on the western side.
Figure 4: Cross-section through the foundation pipe of turbine 07, see Figure 2. Top: going E-W, bottom: going N-S.
Black is the cover 2002 survey and cyan is the 2005 survey.
In the entire area, see Figure 2, 66 m3 was deposited and
520 m3 eroded, which gives a net erosion of 454 m3,
corresponding to a 0.20 m average lowering of the seabed.
2.1 Lowering in the Entire Park
The lowering around all piles has been determined as
done for turbine 7. The maximum change between the
level of the scour protection in 2002 and 2005 is
shown for the entire wind farm in Figure 5. The 20%
fractal for the maximum lowering is -2.0 m, 50%
fractal is -2.2 m, and 80% fractal is -2.5 m.
For each pile the averaged bed level changes are
determined inside the following three areas:
Cross-sections going through the pile in E-W and
N-S directions are shown in Figure 4. A lowering of
the scour protection layer of up to 0.5 m north of the
pile is observed. Just west of the pile erosion is
indicated.
 2.5-3.5 m, which is close to the pile and therefore
the results may be affected by inaccuracies in the
measurements
 3.5-6.0 m
 6.0-10 m which is relatively close to the outer
perimeter of the scour protection
Figure 6 shows the results of the net transport analysis.
As seen, the majority of the scour protections are
subjected to a large negative net transport, i.e. material
is transported away from the area.
Figure 5: Maximum scouring. The values are calculated as the maximum change in scour protection level from 2002
to 2005 up to 10 m from the centre of the foundation. Negative (red colour) is erosion.

Figure 6: Overview of the net transport from the entire wind farm. Most of the scour protections are subjected to
erosion. All values are in m3.
 Column number (from West to East)
0x 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x
X1 -51.9 -128.4 -41.7 -6.4 6.4 -33.3 -80.3 -86.7 -86.7 -154.6
(from North to South) X2 -25.0 -125.6 39.7 -92.4 -41.9 -63.5 -117.6 -68.8 -34.9 -119.4
Row number

X3 -36.3 -88.5 -71.4 -136.8 17.1 -26.7 - -91.9 -54.1 -87.6

X4 -72.4 -134.0 -17.7 - -62.7 -90.2 -47.1 -42.3 -152.0 -78.3
X5 -49.6 -77.4 -98.6 -269.5 -72.3 -67.5 -130.8 -80.8 -117.1 -86.2
X6 -142.4 -274.7 -57.6 -147.9 -65.9 -152.0 -56.3 -96.9 -37.6 -135.0
X7 -83.5 -117.8 -146.9 -55.8 -127.7 -68.0 -40.0 -125.3 -146.5 -75.7
X8 -100.0 -54.3 -81.3 -113.4 -114.5 -1.1 -96.0 -58.6 -144.5 -65.9

Table 1: Net transport for the entire wind farm from 2002 to 2005??. The net transport is calculated in a circular
band going from r = 2.1 m to R= 10 m measured from the centre of the wind turbine. All values are in m3.

of the underlying filter layers or seabed have been

2.2 Movement of Armour Layer
The survey clearly shows that the level of the armour
layer close to the piles has been lowered. This may
either be caused by movement of armour stones away
from the piles or movement downwards.
There is no indication in the surveys that armour
stones have been moved away from pile centre to a
position on top of the armour layer away from the pile
centre nor have armour stones been observed outside
the scour protection. From the survey it has therefore
been concluded that most likely the armour stones
have moved downwards. This is only possible if parts
transported up through the armour layer. This is
considered in the following.
3 Environmental Conditions
The waves have continuously been measured by a
wave rider, see Figure 7. The waves have in the entire
period been simulated by a wave spectral model that
includes tidal and wind generated water level changes,
see [4]. Current velocities up to 1m/s can occur at the
Horns Rev.

Figure 7: Sample of the calculated significant wave height (Hs). The location of the wave rider and the ADCP
(Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler) (in the period before summer ’05) is shown in the figure.
Figure 8: Comparison in a 25 days period in 2005 between H s from the numerical spectral wave model (red line) and
Hs (Hs = 4•std(η)) calculated from the wave rider measurements (blue line).

0x 1x 2x 3x 4x 5x 6x 7x 8x 9x
x1 4.19 4.07 3.96 3.85 3.71 3.57 3.47 3.36 3.24 3.12
x2 4.32 4.22 4.13 4.03 3.88 3.69 3.56 3.44 3.32 3.20
x3 4.49 4.40 4.30 4.21 4.03 3.83 3.66 3.53 3.41 3.29
x4 4.73 4.60 4.47 4.34 4.16 3.97 3.77 3.64 3.53 3.42
x5 4.97 4.80 4.63 4.47 4.29 4.10 3.92 3.77 3.66 3.56
x6 5.22 5.01 4.80 4.59 4.42 4.25 4.09 3.97 3.85 3.73
x7 5.43 5.26 5.08 4.90 4.71 4.52 4.35 4.21 4.07 3.94
x8 5.65 5.51 5.37 5.21 5.00 4.80 4.61 4.45 4.30 4.14

Table 2: 1 hour maximum significant wave height at each of the wind turbines in the period 1 January 2004 –
1 January 2006. All values are in m.

Figure 8 shows a comparison between the simulated The grain sizes of the armour stones, the filter stones,
and measured significant wave heights. and the seabed have been compared with often used
The 1 hour maximum significant wave height at filter criteria for rubble mound breakwaters, the
each of the wind turbines in the period 1 January 2004 Thompson & Shuttler Criteria and U.S. Army Criteria.
– 1 January 2006 is presented in Table 2. These filter criteria can e.g. be found in [5]. The filter
criteria for the soil conditions as stated above are
4 Filter Criteria summarised in Table 4 together with often used filter
criteria, see Table 4. Both the Thompson & Shuttler
Criteria and U.S. Army Criteria consist of three sub-
The Horns Rev scour protection consists of:
d
1. armour stones: 350-550 mm, with mean diameter criteria: 1 5,a ensure that the smallest stones in the
d 5 0 = 400 mm d 8 5, f
2. filter stones: 30-200 mm with mean diameter d 50 = armour layer would not subside into the filter layer,
100 mm d 1 5,a
ensure that the smallest filter stones will not
3. the underlying seabed consists of sand with d 1 5, f
d 5 0 = 0.1-1 mm
d 5 0,a
move out through the armour layer, and ensure
d 5 0, f
d15 d 50 d 85
the overall stability of the main part of the filter stones.
Armour 370 mm 400 mm 550 mm
Filter 20 mm 100 mm 200 mm
Seabed 0.1 mm 0.5 mm 1.0 mm

Table 3 Grain sizes at Horns Rev.

 Pbed 1 H 1
 sin( t )
L cosh( 2h )
Ratio between over and lower
x g
layer L
The wave length, wave period, and water depth are
d15,up d 50,up d15,up related through the linear dispersion relation:
gT 2
d 85,low d 50,low d15,low L tanh( 2h )
2 L
Horns Rev filter to 1.85 4 18.5
armour layer
Using the above relations the near bed velocity and
Horns Rev seabed to 20 200 200 pressure spectra can be determined from a given wave
filter layer spectrum. For the Horns Rev wind turbines, assuming
a JONSWAP spectrum:
Thompson & Shuttler ≤4 ≤7 ≤7 g 2  5  f 4  a
S    exp   0  
2 4 f 5  4  f  
Criteria
U.S. Army Coastal ~2.2 ~2.3 ~2.5
Engineering Research where α=0.0081 and f is the frequency and f0 is the
Center Criteria
peak frequency.
(Shore protection
manual)
  3.3
  f  f 0 2 
a  exp  2 2 
 2 f 0 
Table 4 Filter criteria for typical soil conditions.

As seen in Table 4, the Thompson and Shuttler
criterion is nearly fulfilled for the interface between
the armour layer and the filter layer. However, some of
the smallest stones in the upper part of the filter layer
might be lost through the armour layer. The filter
criteria for the interface between the seabed and the
filter layer are far from being fulfilled. Transport of
sand through the filter and armour layer may take
place if the flow between the stones becomes high
enough to move the sand. This is investigated in the
following.
4.1 A Simple Model for Vertical
Transport of Sand and Filter Stones
upwards through the Armour Layer
In this section the flow inside the scour protection is
estimated, using a simple engineering approach:
4.1.1 Step 1, near bed velocity
The undisturbed (not influenced by the presence of the
piles or scour protection) near bed velocities,
amplitudes, and excess pressures are estimated using
first order sinusoidal wave theory. The near bed flow
conditions are used to evaluate the time varying flow
in the armour layer, in the filter layer, and in the
underlying sand.
The first order near bed wave velocity is related to
the wave height, H, the period, T, the wave length, L,
and the water depth, h, as:
H
U bed t  
1
sin( t )
T sinh( 2h )
L
The first order near bed pressure height (in
metre):
Pbed H 1 formulae, where the effects of turbulence and inertia
 sin( t )
g 2 cosh( 2h )
L
where σ=0.07 for f≤f0 and σ=0.09 for f>f0. Using a
peak period of the wave of 8 s, and a water depth of 10
m the significant near bed velocity and the significant
pressure gradient are related to the significant wave
height as:
usignificant  H s  0.35s 1
Pbed

g
 H s  0.032m1
x significant
4.1.2 Step 2, effect from pile and protection
The pile and scour protection changes locally the near
bed velocities and pressure gradients. In the general
case the near flow and pressure field can be
determined using CFD modelling, see [6] or [7]. For a
circular cylinder on a plane bed exposed to small
waves, these changes can be estimated from Mc-
Cammy Fucks analytical solution. For shallow waves
both the velocities and the pressure gradient will be
increased by a factor of 2. This factor is used in the
present simple analysis, although the authors are aware
that this may be too crude to use in a general case.
4.1.3 Step 3, flow inside the scour protection
The flow occurring in the armour layer is partly due to
the shear from the flow above the armour layer and
partly due to pressure gradients. The importance of the
first part decreases moving downwards through the
layer, whereas the pressure part can be taken to be
constant in the first few metres below the surface. The
flow is here evaluated using only the horizontal
gradients.
The horizontal filter velocity, V (defined as the
volume flux per area) through the armour layer can be
estimated by use of a modification of Darcy’s
are included, see [8]:
 dP
g V
 aV  b' V V  c 
dx t
where a, b’, and c are rock specific constants.
The coefficients a, b’ are taken from [9].
a  2000 / gd 2 s/m and b  35 / gd  s 2 / m2 
and c is found from [8] c  0.5s 2 / m for grains in
consideration.
For known time variation of the pressure gradient,
the filter velocity, V, can be found by solving the first
order differential equation numerically.
The flow velocity (the water velocity between the
grains) is related to the filter velocity through the
porosity n as:
V
U
n
4.1.4 Step 4, stability of the interfaces
If the flow is sufficiently high above a certain layer,
the upper grains will start moving. In the present
simple analysis the onset of grain movement is
determined using the Shields parameter concept.
The Shields parameter at the interface between an
upper layer and a lower layer is defined:
 f'
' 
(  f   )gd f ,50
where:
 f is the specific gravity of the lower layer
 is the water density
d f ,50 is the mean grain diameter of the lower layer
The shear stresses  f ’ on the top of the filter layer
are assumed to be determined by the same relation
normally used to determine the wave induced bed
shear stresses:
 f '  12 f wU a2
where:
U a is the horizontal velocity just above the lower
boundary in the upper layer
f w is the friction factor in oscillatory flow,
depending on the Nikuradse equivalent roughness
k N taken equal k N  2.5d f ,50 and the amplitude of the
U aTp
water movement in the armour layer a  (Tp is

the peak period). The following relation, see [10], is
 a
1
 4 a
used: f w  0.04  ,  50
 k
 kN  N
0.75
 a  a
f w  0.4  ,  50
 kN  kN
The method presented has been used for a typical
storm situation: significant wave height to equal 3.5 m,
water depth 10 m, and peak wave period 10 s. The
associated orbital velocities are listed in Table 5.
At seabed far from the pile 1.5 m/s
In the armour layer far from the pile 0.34 m/s
In the filter layer far from the pile 0.17 m/s
Above scour protection close to the pile 3.0 m/s
In the armour layer close to the pile 0.49 m/s
In the filter layer close to the pile 0.24 m/s
Table 5: Orbital velocities.
The orbital velocities from Table 5 have been used to
estimate the Shields parameter inside the armour and
filter layer caused by the wave orbital motion. The
authors are fully aware that the use of this approach
may be questionable, as the flow in the layers is far
from being uniform which was the case in the
experiments on which the formulas are based.
The authors are also aware that Hatipoglu et al. in
2007 will present an experimental study “Suction
Removal of Sediment from between Armour Blocks in
Waves”, see [11]. These results may be more
applicable for the present purpose than using simple
wave friction factors and it will be interesting to see
how their results match with the observations made on
Horns Rev.
Figure 9: Shields parameter on the upper part of the filter layer (upper figure) and the seabed (lower figure), due to
oscillatory flow in the armour layer. Upper layer D50 = 0.4 m, Hs = 3.5 m, Tp = 10 s, and h = 10 m.
 s
  1 )gd50
2
(
ws 
18
where ν is the viscosity.
The vertical distance a sediment grain will move
during one cycle can be calculated as:
t2

Figure 10: Definition for the calculation of the lift of
sediment
4.1.5 Step 5, evaluation of sand movement
during one wave cycle
Vertical displacement of the sediments will take place
if the vertical water velocities are larger than the fall
velocity of the sediment. The fall velocity is here
found from Stokes by:
l v   (v  ws )dt for v  ws  0
t1
See Figure 10 for the definitions of v, t1 and t2.
The vertical flow velocities are related to the
vertical pressure gradients. Far from the pile the
vertical gradients are significantly lower than the
horizontal gradients, whereas the vertical pressure
gradients close to the pile are expected to be equal the
horizontal gradients.
The vertical velocities are here taken to be
proportional to the horizontal velocity. W  U . In
this simple analysis, α=0.5 and α=1 is used near the
pile and far from the pile   0.2 is used. The vertical
movement using these values is presented in Figure
11. This figure indicates that the theory presented in
this paper explains why the most severe lowering has
taken place close to the piles. Furthermore, the model
predicts that sand finer than 0.35-0.45 mm close to
the pile can move 0.5 m upwards (all the way through
the filter layer) during one wave cycle, for wave
height equal 3.5 m.

Figure 11: Vertical movement of sand during one wave cycle. Upper layer D50 = 0.1 m, Hs = 3.5 m, Tp = 10 s, and
h = 10 m.
 and Coastal Engineering Laboratory Aalborg University in
8. Conclusion collaboration with Danish Hydraulic Institute.
[9]. Engelund, F. (1953). On the Laminar and Turbulent
The surveys indicate that the armour layers have been Flows of Ground Water trough Homogeneous Sand.
stable, even though they have moved downwards due Transactions of the Danish Academy of Technical
to movement of the underlying filter layer and seabed Sciences, No 3.
away from the piles. A simple model for the [10]. Fredsøe, F and Deigaard, R (1992) Mechanics of
movement of the filter layer and seabed has been set Coastal Sediment Transport, World Scientific, Singapore.
up, which indicates that the lowering of the armour 11. Hatipoglu, F. Sumer, B. M. and Fredsøe, J. Suction
Removal of Sediment from between Armor Blocks in
stones is mainly caused by a sand transport through
Waves. 30th International Conference on Coastal
the filter and the armour stones. To avoid movements Engineering, San Diego 2006, Book of abstracts, paper no.
of the seabed material a finer filter layer or a 275
geotextile could be applied. However, due to the
strong current it is impractical to apply a geotextile
and an extra finer filter layer would easily be lost
during construction. For this reason these solutions
were disregarded in the design of the Horns Rev
Wind Farm. A possible solution would be to apply a
thicker filter layer with a higher gradation. This will
of course result in some loss of filter material through
the armour layer, but over time it will be stable.
Another option will be, as at Horns Rev, to make
frequent surveys and then apply new stones if
necessary.

Acknowledgements
The financial support (1.3 mio. DKK) of the Danish
Public Service Program (PSO) under Contract PSO:
6508 (FU5102) is gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1]. Sumer, B.M. and Fredsøe, J. (2001). Scour around pile
in combined waves and current. J. Hydraulic Eng., Vol.
127, No. 5, 403-411.
[2]. J.H. den Boon, J. Sutherland, R. Whitehouse, R.
Soulsby, C.J.M. Stam, K. Verhoeven, M. Høgedal, T. Hald.
Scour Behaviour and Scour Protection for Monopile
Foundations of Offshore Wind Turbines.
[3]. Sumer, B.M. and Fredsøe, J. (2002). The Mechanics of
Scour in the Marine Environment, World Scientific,
Singapore.
[4]. Jacobsen, V., Rugbjerg, M. (2005). Offshore Wind
Farms – the Need for Metocean Data. Copenhagen
Offshore Wind 2005, Copenhagen, 26-28 October 2005.
[5]. Jensen, O. J. (1984). A Monograph on Rubble Mound
Breakwaters, Danish Hydraulic Institute.
[6]. Bredmose, H., Skourup, J., Hansen, E.A., Christensen,
E.D., Pedersen, L.M. and Mitzlaff, A. (2006). Numerical
reproduction of extreme wave loads on a gravity wind
turbine foundation. 25th Int. Conf. Offshore Mech. Arctic
Engng. Hamburg 2006. ASME.
[7]. Christensen, E.D., Bredmose, H. and Hansen E.A.
(2005). Extreme wave forces and wave run-up on offshore
windturbine foundations. Proceedings of Copenhagen
Offshore Wind 2005, Copenhagen October 2005.
[8]. Andersen, O. H. (1994). Flow in Porous Media with
Special Reference to Breakwater Structures. Hydraulics

View publication stats